І. Апостольские мужи

The works of the apostolic men present, in the way of presenting the entire dogmatic teaching in general, few features compared with the expression of this teaching by the New Testament sacred writers, their teachers. As for the sacraments, the apostolic men, like the Apostles, did not pay special attention to these sacred rites, but spoke about them on one occasion or another, briefly expressing the beliefs of the Church regarding this or that sacrament, so that their creations are far from representing a thorough disclosure of the dogmatic teaching on the subject in question. Nevertheless, the writings of the apostolic men, which have an understandable importance for us, contain several data for the dogmatic teaching about the sacraments and even differ in places compared to St. writers with some peculiarities, of course not in the content, but only in the presentation of the frank teaching about these sacred rites. They provide more significant data for the sacraments: the Eucharist, penance and partly the priesthood, than for baptism, confirmation and marriage. Evidence of the consecration of oil, so clearly described and characterized by its grace-filled fruits, in the epistle of St. We do not find Jacob in their works. I. On baptism and confirmation. All that can be extracted from the writings of the apostolic men regarding these two sacraments is as follows. At St. Barnabas we find an indication of the grace-filled fruits of baptism 104 - an indication that does not represent anything special compared to the biblical way of expressing dogmatic teaching on this subject. Some passages in the epistles of St. are more noteworthy. Ignatius the God-Bearer and especially in the “Shepherd” of Hermas. According to St. Ignatius I. Christ was born and baptized in order to purify the water through suffering (τὸ ὕδωρ καθαρισῃ) 105. He especially expressively calls St. Ignatius grace of St. Spirit, living water: “but the living water (τὸ ὕδωρ δ̀ε ζῶν) and speaking in me, calls to me from within 106. In Hermas's "The Shepherd" there are many images expressing the Church's view of baptism. The tower is built on the waters, “for your life is saved and will be saved through the waters” 107. The stones for the construction of this tower are removed from the depths and placed in the building of the tower, as the angel explains, because they, or better said, the people designated by them, “need to pass through the water in order to rest; They could not enter the kingdom of God otherwise than by putting aside the deadness of their former life; why these deceased were sealed with the seal of the Son of God (sigillo Filii Dei ignati sunt) and entered the kingdom of God. For a person, before accepting the name of the Son of God, is destined for death, and as soon as he accepts this seal, he is freed from death and given over to life. This seal is water; people go into it dead and come out alive; That’s why this seal was preached to them and they took advantage of it to enter the kingdom of God” 108. As for confirmation, the apostolic men have no direct instructions regarding it. In all likelihood, they considered it in close connection with baptism and gave these two acts one common name of baptism, as did their other later fathers, calling baptism in a close sense baptism with water, and confirmation - baptism with the Holy Spirit. That, however, the apostolic men looked at this last act as an act separate from the first and very important, this is clear from the “Shepherd” of Hermas, in which two acts are distinguished: passing through the door - on the one hand - and through the hands of the virgins - on the other, accepting the name of the Son (which is equivalent, according to the usage of Hermas, the seal of the Son of God) and endowing with the powers of the virgins 109. II. About repentance. The doctrine of repentance was revealed by Herma in connection with the doctrine of baptism, St. Clement - regarding the riots in the Corinthian church and St. Ignatius - in connection with the doctrine of church hierarchy. In the “Shepherd” of Hermas, the likeness of a tree from which the angel Michael cut branches and distributed to the people deserves special attention, and then demanded all the distributed branches again. Those whose branches turned out to have fruits, or even without fruits, but green as they were given, the angel sent to the tower, giving them a seal (dato eis sigillo), and many others whose branches turned out to be either completely withered and spoiled, or damaged in parts, the angel entrusted to the shepherd, and the shepherd, having planted these branches in the ground, watered them with water (suffundam eis aquam) 110, after which some of these branches even turned out to bear fruit, and some turned green again. According to the shepherd, this planting in the ground and watering the branches means the repentance of believers who have already been baptized. Ermas asks the shepherd to explain what the different kinds of branches mean - they ask to do this for the edification of those who “received the seal (sigillum), but did not keep it intact, but crushed it, so that they, having realized their deeds, repented (poenitentiam agant) and accepted the seal from you (accepto a te sigillo), gave glory to God for the fact that He moved with His mercy and sent you for renewal of their souls." The Shepherd explains the similarity as follows. People with dry and rotten branches are apostates and traitors to the church; they all died to God; people with dry, although not rotten, branches are hypocrites who have seduced the servants of God with alien teachings, especially those who have sinned, and do not allow the latter to return to repentance (non sinentes eos ad poenitentiam redire); such people still have hope of repentance, many of them repent and will repent (et adhuc agent poenitentiam) 111, etc. In conclusion, the shepherd says to Herma “go and tell everyone to repent and live for God, because the Lord, moved by His great mercy, sent me to give repentance to everyone, so that they might learn salvation... All those who repent with all their hearts... will receive healing from the Lord (remedium) past sins" 112. What is remarkable for us in this entire depiction of repentance is the comparison of repentance with baptism, expressed in the image of pouring water, used to denote repentance, and in calling it a seal 113. It is impossible not to see in the above passages an expression of church teaching about the meaning of repentance, as an act equal in importance to baptism. We also find a comparison of baptism with repentance in that place in “The Shepherd”, where Hermas asks “is there any other repentance other than when we go into the water and receive the remission of previous sins?” 114. Neither Hermas nor the other apostolic men say anything, at least directly, about the power of the hierarchy to forgive sins. When Hermas speaks of the forgiveness of sins, he attributes it to God, who has medicine (remedium) 115. Sins are not forgiven suddenly, but “the repentant must contrite his soul, reveal himself to be humble in spirit in all his deeds and endure many and various sorrows, and when he endures everything that is due to him (quae instituta sunt), then the One who created and established everything, of course, will move in him with his mercy and give him some medicine (aliquod remedium), but this is only when he sees that the heart of the one who does the right thing is repentance, pure from any indecent deed 116. So repentance is an act of God’s grace, accomplished under certain conditions and not suddenly. An indirect indication of the mediation of hierarchy in reconciliation with God can be seen in the angel of repentance, whom Hermas often calls the shepherd. The image of this angel and the description of the activities entrusted to him naturally lead to a guess: is the shepherd not the personification of the hierarchy; In particular, this assumption is led by the words spoken to Herma by the angel Michael about this shepherd: “tell everyone that he has great honor and dignity with God, has great power and is powerful in his work. He alone has been given the power of repentance over the whole earth. Doesn’t he seem powerful to you?” 117. The expression “the power of repentance over all the earth” recalls the words of the Savior spoken to the Apostles during their embassy into the world to baptize everyone into knitting and the remission of their sins. And if so, then it is understandable why it is said in some places that “God, who has the power to give healing, gives medicine” and He “alone can heal the deeds of ignorance,” and on the other hand the shepherd is presented as reviving damaged branches by pouring water, calling people who had branches, sending them to known places and generally having great power of repentance. Moreover, in one place it is said that God commands the shepherd “to blot out the sins” of those who have shown true repentance for their sins 118 . The first letter of St. Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, who had troubles and unrest in their society, also intends to incite members of the Corinthian church to repentance. The Holy Father inclines the Corinthian Christians to repentance by the fact that it is possible for everyone, since the blood of the Savior “brought the grace of repentance to the whole world,” (μετανοίας χάριν), meaning here, of course, the grace not of baptism, but in the proper sense of repentance, since we are talking about persons who have already been baptized. Having cited the example of salvation through repentance of the Ninevites 119, as well as numerous passages from the Old Testament that speak of the atonement of sins, he notes: “therefore, desiring that all his beloved were participants in repentance, (God) confirmed (this) by his omnipotent will” 120. He further exhorts those who were troubled among the Corinthians to confess their sin and to submit. “It is better to confess your sins to a person than to harden your heart” 121. “The Lord owns everything and needs nothing except for us to confess (our sins) to Him” 122. So confession of sin must be before man and God together. “Submit to the elders and receive a suggestion of repentance 123. “Let us pray for them, so that they obey not us, but the will of God” 124. In the letters of St. Ignatius has the following remarkable sayings: “So God forgives (the sins) of all who repent if they resort to unity with Christ and to the council of the bishop. I believe in the grace of Jesus Christ, who will release you from all bonds." 125 In this case, the condition under which sins are forgiven by God and a gracious resolution is given from them is very remarkable, namely, when the sinner runs to Christ, wants to restore unity with Him and goes to confess his sin before the persons appointed by Him, who have a bishop at their head. Only under these two conditions “the grace of I. Christ frees (the sinner) from all bonds. It is remarkable that the Holy Father does not set for the sinner the only condition for the forgiveness of sins is the conversion of his soul, thoughts and feelings directly to Christ, but adds that he will find the grace of resolution if he resorts to the hierarchy. The last condition for the effectiveness of repentance, for bringing the grace of God to the repentant, necessarily follows not only from the above passage, but also from the entire content of the epistles of St. Ignatius, from his doctrine of hierarchy, which is set out below. Thus, in the indicated places near Hermas, St. Clement and St. Ignatius compares repentance in meaning to baptism; called the second seal, the second repentance, the pouring of water, the second rebirth; grace (the grace of repentance) is directly assimilated to him. The power of healing throughout the entire earth is attributed to the angel of repentance (Hermas); confession of sins appears to be taking place before God and man (Clement); the grace of permission is given only to those who repent in unity with God and in the council of the bishop (Ignatius). III. About the priesthood. If the main theme of Hermas and Clement was the teaching of repentance, then such a theme of St. Ignatius the God-Bearer was an exposition of the doctrine of hierarchy and the Church. We do not consider it necessary to cite very numerous passages from the epistles of St. Ignatius, in which all three degrees of hierarchy are clearly distinguished to the highest degree: bishop, presbyters and deacons, and in which the doctrine of the importance of especially the first two hierarchical degrees in the Church is revealed. Without deacons, bishops and elders there is no Church 126; without them nothing can be done 127, without them a person serves not God, but the devil 128; Only through union with them can one be in communion with God and form a Church. It is clear that hierarchy can have such a high significance only if hierarchical persons are appointed to serve not only as an external connection for the members of the Church among themselves, if they are more than ordinary officials, inevitable in every society, if they are intermediaries between God and people in distributing to some and receiving to others the gifts of grace, if they are instruments of sanctification for everyone and in all respects. That is exactly how St. looked at them. Ignatius, this is evident from the fact that he attributes to the hierarchy the power to sanctify others with the gifts of grace. So he writes to the Corinthians: “So that by obeying the bishop and the presbytery, you may be sanctified in all” 129, and St. He calls Polycarp endowed with grace 130. According to St. Ignatius also testifies to St. Clement. Exhorting the Corinthians to peace with the hierarchy, he notes: “let us join those to whom grace has been given from God 131. It goes without saying that, due to this nature, hierarchical persons should receive their powers and strength for the performance of their duties not from the members of visible society, but from the invisible God; otherwise they could not be the dispensers of the divine gifts of the believers. But in what act do hierarchical persons receive their blessed powers? As for the act of receiving the gifts of the priesthood, there are no direct indications of this in the works of the apostolic men, but there are only a few hints, however quite clear, reminiscent of the corresponding sayings of St. Scriptures. So St. Ignatius, welcoming the Philadelphians, stipulates: “if they are in unity with the bishop, with the presbyters and deacons who are with them, indicated according to the thought of I. Christ, whom, of his own will, He established unshakably by His Holy Spirit” 132. Here two actions attract attention: firstly, an indication of the hierarchical persons according to the thought of I. Christ, and secondly, the confirmation of these persons, indicated by someone, by the own will of I. Christ through the Holy Spirit. The first act belongs, in all likelihood, to the community of believers; the last one - to the Holy Spirit. or supplying persons and organs with the Holy Spirit. The second act is something very important, since strengthened expressions are used to denote it: “established, unshakably, of one’s own free will, by the Holy Spirit.” Meanwhile, Clement of Rome says that bishops “are installed by the Apostles or then by other famous men with the consent of the entire church” 133. In this last place, two actions are also indicated: on the one hand, the consent of the entire church, on the other, the installation by the Apostles, and the first differs from the second. Comparing with these words of St. Clement, the above words of St. Ignatius, we will not, it seems to you, stray from the truth if we assimilate to the apostolic men the following teaching about the act of appointing Hierarchical persons. Holy Spirit (Ign.) through the apostles and their successors (Klim.) unshakably affirms, invests with grace (Ign.) persons chosen according to the thought of I. Christ (Ign.), with the consent of the entire church (Klim.). That the election of these persons, or the indication of the whole church to certain persons, is not of the same importance as their installation through the Apostles and their successors by the Holy Spirit - this idea is not literally expressed by the apostolic men; but it is clear from their separation of one act from another, from the mention of the direction and consent of the entire church - separately from approval and installation; most of all, it necessarily follows from the view of the apostolic fathers on the hierarchy as the dispenser of the gifts of God’s grace, which the people cannot communicate, but only God and his organs can. Without going into a detailed study regarding the number of hierarchical degrees mentioned in the works of the apostolic men, we will point out two results obtained from the study of these creations in this respect: the insufficient establishment of names to designate each of the hierarchical degrees 134 and the certainty, despite the fact that in the age of the apostolic men there were precisely three degrees of hierarchy, neither more nor less 135. Thus, according to the teaching of the apostolic men, bishops, presbyters and deacons are not ordinary officials who have nothing more than the power and rights granted to them by the society of Christians; they are empowered by God himself to distribute to others the gifts of God's grace. They receive such rights and powers from the Holy Spirit. through the Apostles and their successors, in the act of being placed in the service of the church. Distinct from this act of compilation is the designation by the church of famous persons for elevation to hierarchical degrees and the consent of the church to the selection of certain persons for this purpose. IV. About the Eucharist. In addition to very important data concerning the priesthood, St. Ignatius the God-Bearer in his epistles we find several significant words relating to the sacrament of the Eucharist. For all its brevity, it is very expressive. Convicting the Docetes of confessing that Christ did not accept truly human flesh, but only a ghost of flesh, St. Ignatius, in one of his epistles, following a rather lengthy denunciation of heretics in this error, dwells on their attitude towards the Eucharist and writes: “they withdraw from the Eucharist and prayer for the reason that they do not recognize that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior I. Christ, which suffered for our sins, which the Father raised in his goodness. Therefore, resisting the gift of God, they die in their research. It would be more beneficial for them to participate in the Eucharist in order to be resurrected” 136. St. Ignatius in these words denounces the Docetes for denying the identity of the Eucharistic flesh with the flesh that Christ had on earth, through which He suffered and which the Father raised, and for not recognizing that the Eucharist is a gift of God, a pledge of the future resurrection of our bodies. With this kind of denunciation he very clearly testifies to the belief of the Orthodox Church in the real presence of the body of Christ in the Eucharist. It is impossible to understand the above words differently, as Reformed theologians 137 do, without contradicting the direct meaning of the words of St. father and his clear intention. In the passage under discussion, he had the goal of convicting the Docetes not of denying the existence of the flesh in the Person of the God-Man - since he said enough about this above 138 - but of neglecting and denying precisely the Eucharist, of not recognizing its identity with the body that Christ accepted in the incarnation 139. Therefore, one cannot understand the words of St. Ignatius on the Eucharist against the Docetians, as if he meant to convict them of their failure to recognize the existence of the flesh in the Theanthropic Person of the Savior, whereby St. the father means to tell the Docetians that it is in vain that the Eucharist seems to them to be a symbol of something that does not exist and has never existed, that it is, indeed, a symbol, but only of the actually existing and hitherto existing flesh of Christ, and therefore a symbol worthy of acceptance and not rejection. To understand the passage in question in this way means to put into it a meaning contrary to the literal one (“they do not recognize that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior, which suffered for sins”) and not pay attention to the course of the St.’s reasoning. father. Given the Reformed way of understanding the first half of the passage cited, it becomes unclear why St. Ignatius, in further words, continues to speak not about the flesh of Christ in general, as would be natural to expect with this method of interpretation, but specifically about the Eucharist, calling it the gift of God; further, why in this and other places he places the resurrection in direct dependence not on faith in general in the Lord risen by the body 140, but on partaking of the Eucharistic body of Christ; why, finally, does he insist on the idea that not the immortality of the soul, but the resurrection of our body is directly dependent on the reception of the Eucharist; How does our body receive from eating the Eucharistic bread a guarantee of the future resurrection, if the Eucharist in itself is not the incorruptible body of the Lord, but is only a symbol of the body of Christ 141? From the Eucharist, as a symbol, benefits for only spiritual life can directly flow: only through the soul, therefore, not directly, indirectly, can the Eucharist, as a symbol, have a saving effect on the body; and therefore it is not clear why St. does the father make the resurrection of the body directly dependent on the Eucharistic body of Christ? These are all questions which, from a Reformed point of view, cannot be resolved without extreme stretching. The place in question is not the only one of its kind. We find a similar passage in another epistle. Pointing out that he does not feel any pleasure in eating perishable food, St. Ignatius continues: “I desire the bread of God, the bread of heaven, the bread of life, - (bread) which is the flesh of Jesus Christ the Son of God, who was born in the last time from the seed of David and Abraham, and I desire the drink of God, His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life” 142. In this place St. Ignatius calls the Eucharistic bread directly the flesh of the Son of God, as in the previous place, and, moreover, again in agreement with this latter, he determines what kind of flesh it is: it is the same that the Son of God received on earth from the seed of Abraham and David. Moreover, in the passage under consideration, he very expressively calls the Eucharist incorruptible, testifying through the fact that he believes in the presence in it of the most incorruptible flesh and blood of the Lord; since it is difficult to attach the epithet “incorruptible” to the symbol. The same expression in the words: “eternal life” contains a hint of the idea of ​​the resurrection of our bodies feeding on the incorruptible flesh of Christ 143. In the third of the most remarkable passages 144 relating to the Eucharist, St. Ignatius says that the breaking of the Eucharistic bread is “the medicine of immortality, not just an antidote to not dying; but also (the means) to live in Jesus Christ through everything” 145. These words contain an intensified expression of the thought of immortality as the fruit of partaking of the Eucharist: “not only not to die, but also to live.” Not dying, of course, means living; and therefore, apparently, the last words were added completely in vain. This addition would indeed be pointless and would contradict the well-known brevity of expression characteristic of the epistles of St. Ignatius, if St. the father meant here the immortality of only the soul; but it makes sense and turns out to be far from superfluous if he wanted to point out not only the future blessed life of the soul, but also the resurrection of the body. The words “through everything” (that is, with the entire composition of a person, not only the soul, but also the body) make it clear why such a strange turn of speech at first glance was allowed. So among the apostolic men, in the person of St. Ignatius, there are two important dogmatic thoughts related to the doctrine of the Eucharist: 1) that the Eucharistic body is identical with the body that the Savior received in the incarnation. 2) that from the acceptance of this sacrament benefits arise not only for the soul, but also for the body of a Christian, which is nourished by the incorruptible body of Christ into incorruption, into the future resurrection. Thanks to these two divinely revealed thoughts, which prompted St. Ignatius, the removal of the docetes from the Eucharist, the frank teaching about this sacrament received from this apostolic man an even more pronounced objection than in the publications of St. Apostles. V. About marriage. As for the sacrament of marriage, we find only one place about it in the works of the apostolic men, and even that most common thing is in St. Ignatius the God-Bearer. Advising Christians to “love their cohabitants, like Christ the Church,” he notes: “those who want to get married and those getting married should marry with the knowledge of the bishop, so that the marriage is about the Lord, and not out of lust. Let everything be for the glory of God" 146. Here there is an allusion to the words of the apostle about marriage as a great mystery (Eph. 5:25), but without any disclosure or any peculiar expression of the revealed teaching about this sacrament. The apostolic men did not consider second marriage a sin 147. VI. The scope of the concept of μυστήριον among the apostolic men. The very rare use of this word in the writings of the apostolic men is remarkable. We have only found three places where it occurs. It is in the first place that the virginity of the Mother of God, the birth of I. Christ from her and the death of the Lord are called three mysteries 148. In the second place it is said that through the mystery of the death of the Lord (δἰ οὖ μυστηρίου) we received the beginning of faith 149. The third place is as follows: “We must in every possible way please the deacons, who are (deacons) of the sacraments of I. Christ (ὅντας μυστηρίων Ἰης. Χρ.); for they are not deacons of food and drink, but ministers of the church of God” 150. The first two places are reminiscent of those places in the apostolic letters where the incarnation and passion of the Lord are called μυστἡριον, and the last - 1 Cor. 4:1, where, however, ap. Paul does not speak about the deacons, but about himself and the other Apostles, calling himself and their stewards of the mysteries of God. At St. Ignatius’s use of this word in the latter case is all the more remarkable because he contrasts the sacraments with simple food and drink, and therefore by this expression, apparently, it is made clear that we are talking about the body and blood of I. Christ, which are here called μυστήρια; whereas for the apostle, this expression can be understood as teaching and performing sacred rites and administration entrusted to the apostles, in a word, the entire mission entrusted to them by the Savior 151. Finally, this place is at St. Ignatius on deacons is also remarkable in that the word μυστήριον, as we will see later, is not used by the fathers closest in time to the apostolic men (St. Justin the Martyr and St. Irenaeus), in application to the sacraments in the proper sense. It is also remarkable that despite the very frequent use of the word τύπος, especially in St. Barnabas 152, it is nowhere replaced by the word μυστήριον, while, starting with Justin the Martyr, we find this use of the latter expression very common. The same must be said regarding σημεῖον, παραβολή and σύμβολον. As for the use of the words τελείωσις, τελειόω and their derivatives, these expressions occur very often, but in the most general sense, without any immediate reference to the sacraments. Perfect knowledge is often spoken of 153; Christians are called perfect 154 ; it is said that through love they have achieved perfection 155 and will achieve even greater things. Only in Hermas in one place is the Latin word consummati used, in the sense of perfection, through the perception of the seal of the Son and the power of virgins 156. The general result of the study of the works of the apostolic men in this regard can be expressed in the following provisions. 1) The doctrine of baptism, confirmation and marriage is revealed less among the apostolic men than in St. Scripture. The teaching about repentance, the Eucharist and partly about the priesthood represents, in full agreement with the revealed teaching, something special in the way of expression. 2) A peculiarity in the way the apostolic fathers expressed the frank teaching on repentance must be recognized as their direct placing of repentance at the level of a sacred rite, equal to baptism, and the direct assimilation of a special grace to it - the grace of repentance. The idea of ​​granting the hierarchy the right to absolve sins is expressed less directly in them than in St. Scripture. 3) With an equally clear indication of the grace of the priesthood as in St. Scripture, and in the works under consideration, in the latter we find an even more direct distinction than in the first, between the act of appointing hierarchical persons and the act of popular election or, according to the Apostle, testimony from outsiders: but in St. The Scriptures express more clearly and directly than the apostolic disciples the relation of grace to visible sacred rites and ordination. 4) But what is especially remarkable is the new way in which the apostolic men revealed the revealed teaching about the Eucharist. This teaching is expressed in their opposition to false views on this sacrament and therefore essential in the Orthodox teaching about the Eucharistic body and blood of Christ, namely the thought of their actual presence in the Eucharist, is shaded even more than in St. Scripture. In addition, the thought of partaking of the Eucharist serves as a guarantee for the immortality of not only the soul, but also the body. 5) the word μυστήριον, used incomparably less frequently by apostolic men than by sacred writers, in one place, however, is applied first (by St. Ignatius), apparently to the Eucharist. Barnabas calls (Epist. p. 6 p. 741) baptism renewal through the remission of sins (ἀνακαινἰσας ἐν τῇ ἅφεσει ἀμαρτιῶν), re-creation (ἀναπλάσσεσθαι), the second creation in the last days (δευτέραv πλάσιv), notes (Epist. p. 16) that “having received remission of sins and having placed our hope in the name of the Lord, we have become completely new, newly created.” On the remission of sins in baptism, see also p. 11 rub. 758–760. Pastor Vis. III c. 3. Per aquam salva facta est et fiet. Simil. XVI: illud autem sigillum aqua est etc. This includes the place where Hermas says that “all the nations under heaven, having heard the preaching, believed and were called by one name of the Son. Therefore, having received His seal, everyone received one understanding and one meaning, and they had one faith and one love, and together with His name they bore the spirits of these virgins (et spiritus virginum harum cum Ejus nomine ferebant. Past. Simil. IX c. 17). This subject is discussed in even more detail elsewhere (ibid. p. 13). When Hermas asked who the virgins were who took part in the construction of the tower, the angel answered that they were “holy spirits (spiritus sancti); a person cannot enter the kingdom of God unless they clothe him with their clothing. For it will not be of any use to you that you take the name of the Son of God if you do not also accept clothing (etiam et) from them. These virgins are the powers (potestates) of the Son of God. So you will bear His name in vain if you do not also bear His powers... Everyone who bears the name of the Son of God must also bear their names, because the Son himself bears their names.” That virtues can hardly be understood by the powers of the virgins, this is clear from further speech. To Hermas’s question, “Why were some stones found unsuitable for the construction of the tower, although they were carried through the door and passed through the hands of the virgins,” the Angel replies: “All such received the name of the Son and the power (potestatem) of these virgins. Having received these spirits (his spiritibus), they became perfect (consummati).” But then, according to the angel’s explanation, they lost the perfection they had received, because they were seduced by the beauty of two virgins dressed in black clothes (a hint of the power of evil spirits). Therefore, by consummati and potestatem virginum we mean not affirmation in virtue, not any subjective act, but an objective one, the receipt of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Spirit. Potestas and Spiritus recall the words of Christ about being endowed with power from above (Luke 24:49 and Acts 1:8) about receiving power through the descent of St. Spirit. When Herma says to the Shepherd that people who have not kept the seal, having repented, will receive a seal from him (the Shepherd), then, obviously, by the first seal he means baptism, and by the second seal - repentance. Mandat. IV n. 3. Audivi a quibusdam doctoribus, quod alia poenitentia non est, nisi ilia, cum in aqua descendimus et accipimus remissionem peccatorum nostrorum. The angel answered Hermas that those who are crediderunt, aut credituri sunt poenitentiam peccatorum non habent, sed remissionem, but those who are vocati sunt ante hos dies, posuit Deus poenitentiam... et potestatem poenitentiae hujus mihi dedi. So, with all the similarities between repentance and baptism, there is, however, a difference between them; the first is in the strict sense poenitentia, the second remissio. Mand. IV n. 1. Simil V n. 7. Simii. X n. 1: in magno honore esse eum et dignitate apud Deum et mangnae potestatis eum praesidem esse et potentem in officio suo. Huic soli per totum orbem poenitentiae potestas tributa est. Comp. Mand. IV, 3. Simil IX n.33. Cumque vidisset Dominus bonam atque puram poenitentiam eorum et posse eos in ea permanere, jussit priora peccata eorum deleri. Ibid. With. 51: ἀνθρὡπψ ἐξομολογεῖσθαι περὶ τῶν παραπτωμάτων. Also in Barnabas (p. 19): ἐξομολογἡση ἐπὶ τῶν ἁμαρτἱας σοῦ, however, in the most general sense. Corinth. With. 52: ἐι μἠ τὸ ἐξομολογεῖσθαι αὐτψ͂. Phil. c. 8. ἀφίησιν ὁ Θεὸς, έἀν συνδραμῶσιν εἰς ἐνότητα ἐπισκόπου. All rights reserved. σύνδεσμον. Trall. c. 3. Χωρὶς τούτων ἐκκλησία οὐ καλεῖται. Smyrn. c. 9. Εὔλογόν ἐστιν... ἐις Θεόν μετανοεῖν. Καλῶς ἔχει Θεόν καί ἐπίσκοπον ἐιδέναι. Ὁ τιμῶν ἐπίσκοπον ύπὸ Θεοῦ τετίμηταί ὁ λάθρα ἐπίσκοπον τι πράσσων τῷ διαβόλῳ λατρεύει. Ephes. c. 2. ἤτε ἡγιασμένοι. Ad. Polyc. c. 1. Παρακαλῶ σε ἐν χάριτι, ῆ̔ ἐνδέδισε. Corinth. c. 30. οἵς ή χάρις ὑπο͂ τοῦ Θεοῦ δέδοται. Phil. praef: σὐν τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ καὶ τοῖς σὐν αυτῷ πρεσβυτέροις καὶ διακόνοις, ἀποδεδειγμένοις έν γνώμη Ἰησυῦ Χριστοῦ, οὕς κατὰ τὸ ἴδιον θέλημα ἐστήριςεν ἐν δεδαιοσὑνῃ, τῷ ἁγιῳ αὐτοῦ Πνεύματι. 1Corinth. c. 44: τοὺς κατασταθέντας ύπ ̔ ἐκείνων (ἀποστόλων), ἤ μεταξὐ ὑφ ̔ ἐτέρων ἐλλογίμων ἀνδρῶν συνευδοκησἀσης τῆς Ἐκκλησίας πάσης... See also p. 42 about delivery. In the first place it is said that the apostles knew that there would then be discord about the episcopal name (ἐπὶ τοῦ ὀνόματος ἐπισκοπῆς) and therefore they added the law (ἐπινομὴν) so that when they rested, others would be tested the men accepted their ministry. Hermas mentions: apostli et episcopi et doctores et ministri (Vis. X c. 5). At St. Clement we find the following. In 42 ch. he says that the Apostles supplied ἐις ὲπισκόπους καὶ διακόνους. In 44 ch. having said that the Apostles, in anticipation of strife περἰ τοῦ ὁνόματος ἐπισκοπῆσ, decreed a law that after their death they should be appointed as their successors, in turn the successors of the latter, which is a sin to deprive ἐπισκοπῆς worthy people, then calls these persons πρεσβυτέροι: “Blessed are the presbyters who preceded ... they are not afraid that anyone will overthrow them from the place they occupy.” In 47 ch. says that the Corinthian church was indignant because of one or two people. In 54 ch. convinces the flock of Christ to be in peace μετἀ καθεσταμἐνων πρεσβυτέρων; at 57 - will submit to τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις. This lack of establishment of exact and uniform names for the three degrees of hierarchy is also noticed in St. Scripture (compare Acts 20:16 with verse 28. Titus 1:5 with verse 7; 2 John 1; 3 John 1; 1 Peter 5:1). Not to mention Hermas, in whom, besides the apostles, all three degrees are mentioned, although not all of them are named as they are called in our country, let us point out the following very remarkable place in the same saint. Clement, who apparently does not have a strict distinction between hierarchical degrees. In 40 ch. admonishing believers to “do in order everything that the Lord commanded to be done at the appointed times,” that “He himself, by His highest will, determined where and through whom this should be done,” adds: τῷ γὰρ ἀρχιερέει ἰδίαι λειτουργίαι δεδομέναι ἐισὶν, καὶ τοῖς ίερεῦσιν ἴδιος ό τόπος προστἐτακται καἰ λευίταις ἰδίαι διακονίαι ἐπικεινται. An indication of the Old Testament hierarchy is made here by St. Clement in such a way that gives every right to see the intention of St. in this instruction. father to find out to the Corinthians why there is a hierarchy in the Christian Church with its various degrees, namely three. But what becomes especially undoubted is the existence in the century of men of the apostolic three degrees of hierarchy from the epistles of St. Ignatius, in which they very often talk about bishops, presbyters and deacons, and moreover in such a way that there is absolutely no possibility of doubting the essential difference between these three degrees. Such, for example, is the place where Deacon Sotion is praised for the fact that he obeys the bishop, as the grace of God, - πρεσβυτέριῳ, as the law of I. Christ (Magnes. p. 2), and then (ibid. p. 3) it is said that the elders, in turn, obey the bishop. All three degrees “are mentioned in a row in the epistles: to the Magnesians (p. 6. 13), Trillians (p. 2. 3. 7), Philadelphians (p. and p. 7), Smyrnans (p. 8. 12), Polycarp (p. 6). We do not indicate those passages from the epistles of St. Ignatius, in which only bishops and presbyters are mentioned, in attention, probably, to the special importance of these two degrees of hierarchy. Smyrn. c. 7. ? τἠν ὑπέρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν παθοῦσαν, ἤν τῇ χριστότητι ὁ Πατὴρ ἥγειρεν. Οί οὗν ἀντιλἑγοντες τῆ δωρεᾷ τοῦ Θεοῦ συζητοῦντες ἀποθνήσκουσιν. Συνέφερεν δὲ αὐτοῖς ἀγαπᾷv, ῖνα καὶ ἀναστῶσιν. By ἀγαπᾷv, obviously, we mean the Eucharist. See for example Ebrard's – Dog. Abendmahl p. 255–257. We also have this in mind when further refuting the particulars of the reformist view. This rejection of the Eucharist among the Docetes, of course, is a consequence arising from their rejection of the flesh of Christ in general; but this consequence, like any consequence, can be considered separately from the beginning that gave rise to it. The Holy Father does exactly this: after exposing the docetic principle, he deliberately dwells on the relationship of the docetes to the Eucharist. The Holy Father did not express it, for example, like this: “What leads to immortality is the assimilation by faith of the sufferings of the Savior with the help of the Eucharist, as a symbol that awakens in the heart of a Christian faith in the Crucified and Risen One.” In view of this difficulty, it is understandable why Reformed theologians resort to the interpretation of the expressions: ῖνα καὶ ἀναστῶσιν (in the given place) and ἀθανασία, τοῦ μἠ ἀποθανεῖν, ἀλλα ζῇν (elsewhere) in the sense of acquiring “spiritual life, as the opposite of spiritual death.” But since the thought of the resurrection and immortality of St. Ignatius makes a special emphasis, then one must assume that he means the Docetes; and the Docetes did not reject the immortality of the soul; they denied only the resurrection of the body. Not to mention the fact that ἀνάστασις is usually used when talking about the body; ἀθανασία is another matter. Ad. Rom. c. 7. Ἅρτον Θεοῦ θἐλω, ἅρτον οὐράνιον, ἅρτον ζωῆς, ὄς ἐστιν σάρξ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, τοῦ Ύιοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ... καί πόμα Θεοῦ θἐλω, τὀ αἶμα αὐτοῦ, ο͂ ἐστιν ἀγάπη ἄφθαρτος καὶ ἀένναος ζωή. Comp. ἀγαπᾷν, ἵνα ἀναστῶσιν (Smyrn. c. 7) with ἀγάπη ἅφθαρτος. Bread, according to St. Ignatius, is flesh and precisely the same one that the Son of God accepted in the incarnation. The Eucharistic drink is blood, but what kind of blood? To this he answers: “drink is blood, love is imperishable and life is eternal.” See also “one flesh of our Lord I. Christ and one cup in union with His blood (Phil. c. 4). See also Trall. c.2 (about deacons; given below). Ephes. p.20: ἒνα ἄρτον κλῶντες, ὅς έστι φάρμακον ἀθανασίας, ἀντίδοτον τοῦ μὴ ἀποθανεῖν, ἀλλἀ ζῆν ἐν Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ διἀ παντός. Ad Polycarp. c. 5: μετἀ γνώμης τοῦ ἐπισκόπου … κατἀ Κύριον. Ephes. c. 19: παρθενία Μαρίας καἰ ό τοκετὸς αὐτῆς, όμιως καἰ ό θάνατος τοῦ Κυρίου ́ τρία μυστήρια, ἄτινα ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ Θεοῦ ἐπράχθη. What is closest to understand here (as we have seen), judging by the context of the speech, is the work of preaching about the Crucified One and planting faith in Jesus Christ in the hearts of believers. Τύπος Ἰησοῦ – scapegoat. (Barnab. p. 7). Τύπος – sacrifice of a red youth (ibid. p. 8). Τύπος σταυροῦ - Moses praying (ibid. p. 12). Τύπος Ἰησοῦ – copper serpent (ibid.). The Son of God appeared ἐν τύπῳ καἰ ἐν σαρκὶ (ibid.). Jacob in spirit foresaw τύποv τοῦ λαοῦ. Eg. τἐλεῖαν γνῶσιν in Barnabas (c. 13) and in Clement (1 Corinth. c. 1). Eg. τἐλειοι ὅντες, τἐλεια φροvεῖται by Ignatius the God-Bearer (Smyrn. p. 11). Eg. in Clement (1 Cor. c. 49): ἐτελειώθησαν You might be interested in: